Ashes debate thread.

[aussie1st]

Aussies may have a bad record against left handers but if they get a hold of a spinner look out. Vettori has taken some punishment by the Aussies, Murali even went for some.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Have you seen Monty bowl? He is actally quite good.

This will be his real test. We will soon see. The Aussies don't have good records against Left Handed spin bowlers.

Vettori's bowling record in Test Matches isn't that impressive against Australia. He basically averages 35 against us. I dunno any other Left Handed spin bowlers who'd be noticible to have had success against us.

 

[Stephen Bailey]

Whilst I do agree that it's the batsmans jobs to score runs and the bowlers jobs to take wickets, let's not be too harsh on Fletcher here. Afterall it was these multi-dimensional players that were so key to us winning the Ashes.

True, but say if Sajid Mahmood or Plunkett plays then you have Hoggard, Harmison and Mahmood/Plunkett who can hold a bat and Monty is far from useless. Mahmood and Plunkett have the potential to be at no. 8, whether they are good enough with the ball is another question, but they would be no less effective than Giles surely?

I am not being naive, I know he is good, but he is young and seeing a psychologist shows that he is not ready mentally.

He's trying to find out how he should cope should he get any abuse from the crowd which I think is a very good move. Many players go to Australia and are beaten as soon as the crowd gets on at them. I don't see it as a sign that he is not ready mentally.

 

[JamesyJames3]

I don't think so, England's strong suit is their pacemen, their spinners are average/good at best, but nowhere near as good as their pace attack. They would be wasting their time to drop one.
As for my comment, he may have proven himself against the Pakis, but there is a difference between them and the Aussies, the best outfit in the world will not be as easy to conquer. I am not being naive, I know he is good, but he is young and seeing a psychologist shows that he is not ready mentally. If it cdomes down the point where the batsmen get on top early, he will become tired and less dangerous if he cant stamp early authority, he needs to be able to beat us before he gives up, which I think mentally he will do if he can't take some early wickets. Sydney is Test Number 5, there will be no charity pitches for him if he can't last that long. Sure he could be dangerous then, but only if he can keep up.

You say there is a difference in quality between the Pakistanis and Australia and I agree. However, Pakistan are the better players of spin and Monty was succesful against them. He has played 10 matches against India, Sri Lanke and Pakistan and got 30 wickets, not half bad.

You also say there will be no charity pitches, but Monty has taken wickets at Headingly (Seamer friendly). Spinners hardly ever take wickets there, not even Warne.

It sounds to me although you ain't got a clue what your talking about when it comes to Monty mate.

 

[FreddieFan]

You say there is a difference in quality between the Pakistanis and Australia and I agree. However, Pakistan are the better players of spin and Monty was succesful against them. He has played 10 matches against India, Sri Lanke and Pakistan and got 30 wickets, not half bad.

You also say there will be no charity pitches, but Monty has taken wickets at Headingly (Seamer friendly). Spinners hardly ever take wickets there, not even Warne.

It sounds to me although you ain't got a clue what your talking about when it comes to Monty mate.

Agreed. This man created problems for Younis Khan, Yousuf and Inzy, which in my opinion is a better middle order than Australia posess. Also, Pakistan is more spin-friendly than Australia, I believe, so they'll have grown up on spin bowling. Yet they struggled.

Monty is potentially England's Ashes winner, but also another potential casualty of an Australia Ashes tour. Only time will tell whcih.

 

[cricketmad09]

True, but say if Sajid Mahmood or Plunkett plays then you have Hoggard, Harmison and Mahmood/Plunkett who can hold a bat and Monty is far from useless. Mahmood and Plunkett have the potential to be at no. 8, whether they are good enough with the ball is another question, but they would be no less effective than Giles surely?

Mahmood, Plunkett, Hoggard, Harmison and Monty are useless with the bat.

Much rather have Lee and Warney filling the no. 8 and 9 posititions than those guys.

 

[Stephen Bailey]

Mahmood, Plunkett, Hoggard, Harmison and Monty are useless with the bat.

So you see no potential in Mahmood, Plunkett and Panesar's batting at all? Mahmood has already played a few vital innings, most recently in the 5th ODI v Pakistan. Plunkett has a ODI 50 to his name and averages nearly 20 in FC cricket and Panesar doesn't get the credit he deserves from some people.

What I call useless is Glenn McGrath before his big improvement in the last couple of years. Hoggard is the closest we have to that.

 

[evertonfan]

Mahmood, Plunkett, Hoggard, Harmison and Monty are useless with the bat.

Much rather have Lee and Warney filling the no. 8 and 9 posititions than those guys.

So would we, but Warne and Lee aren't English are they? :

And if you think Mahmood, Harmison and Plunkett are useless then you should look at some of their recent scores.

 

[JamesyJames3]

So you see no potential in Mahmood, Plunkett and Panesar's batting at all? Mahmood has already played a few vital innings, most recently in the 5th ODI v Pakistan. Plunkett has a ODI 50 to his name and averages nearly 20 in FC cricket and Panesar doesn't get the credit he deserves from some people.

What I call useless is Glenn McGrath before his big improvement in the last couple of years. Hoggard is the closest we have to that.

Stevie, I wouldn't bother evenn argueing it. Cricketmad is simply another Australian which speaks without having any knowledge of other teams. Just like the guy that was going on about how Monty is terrible :

 

[cricketmad09]

What I mean by useless, is useless in terms of winning the game. Because somebody was droning on about how England have batting depth, and how thier tailenders can bat, but if you have an average of 15, it is gonna mean poo all.

 

[puddleduck]

What I mean by useless, is useless in terms of winning the game. Because somebody was droning on about how England have batting depth, and how thier tailenders can bat, but if you have an average of 15, it is gonna mean poo all.

But that is roughly what Warne and Lee average with the bat, yet you've just said you'd rather have them coming in, why if it makes no difference?

If Hoggy couldn't hold up an end, if Gilo hadn't been able to provide runs, England may well have failed to get across the finish line at Trent Bridge, so they are useful, and have proved to be useful.

Obviously minus Giles, the Aussie tail is stronger, but since the bowling attack with Panesar could well be more potent, a few less runs could turn out to be fine if they are picking up their wickets cheaper.

 

[cricketmad09]

Because there was a discussion about bowlers who can bat, and the help they will bring to the team, and Warne and Lee are better than Plunkett/Mahmood and Harmison

 

[puddleduck]

Yes they probably are, but that doesn't stop Harmison, Plunket/Mahmood or Hoggard being useful with the bat. Afterall just because Ponting is a better bat then Hussey, doesn't by any means make Hussey useless.

I think you probably picked the wrong word earlier when using "useless".

Regarding Englands batting depth, our tail is noticeably longer without Giles, but they still have the ability to eke out some runs, and with Panesar look more like taking wickets, so potentially are more dangerous, as it is wickets that win you test matches.

That all said, our actual batting depth in the top 6 now looks a lot stronger than it did before the Ashes, with some real competition for places emerging, and plenty of it from players under 26.

 

[Simbazz]

In my humble opinion, my line up would be, and it has been the line up id have chosen a long way back, but here it is

Strauss (Vice Captain)
Trescothick
Cook
Pietersen
Bell
Collingwood
Flintoff (C)
Read
Hoggard (2nd bowler)
Harmison (1st Bowler)
Panesar

Ok i know its seriously lacking pace with only Harmison, Hoggard and Flintoff bowling quite fast but look at it, Collingwood can bowl, and has been up there in the high 70's and early 80's at times, Bell can bowl, Pietersen can have a few overs here and there, its only really the top three and Read who cant pitch in with a few overs, so that'll be my team !

 

[irottev]

Vettori's bowling record in Test Matches isn't that impressive against Australia. He basically averages 35 against us. I dunno any other Left Handed spin bowlers who'd be noticible to have had success against us.

35 still isn't bad and I was more going by the ODI's. I can't even remember the last time we played Australia in a test. Such a long time ago.